The first comment was my opinion that I didn't think there was too much in his comment.

The second was my opinion that people have made it bigger than it is and are now talking about phoning him on air and taking it further even though the beeb have replied.

Yea but Conroy the Beeb's response was unacceptable, a standard e-mail.

You think it's OK for him to take the out of what was at the time a potential career threatening injury??

He's a at the best of times.

That's my point - I don't think he was. When you watch a game that includes the team we play the week after or that is above us, you might use the comment [i'a few injuries and suspensions will do'[/i but you don't actually wish a player to get hurt. I just think this was similar.

I don't listen to him so have no idea what he's usually like - maybe he is a grade A .

In which case, presumably, they are neither satisfied with the BBC's response or stance on the incident. I still don't see at what point our opinions need to fall into line with yours and why you feel the need to tell us they don't, not once, but twice?

I never said they had to did I? I just stated that my opinion is that it has been blown out of proportion. My opinion on 9/11 is that it they knew about it. Doesn't make either of them right. They're just my opinion.

Again with the proportion blowing.

If Wigan were playing Leeds next week. Would you rather face a fully fit Leeds side or a Leeds side that had picked up a few injuries the week before and so were weakened? Obviously not major injuries such as a break, but a dead leg or a twisted sock. Enough to keep him out the side and therefore make it better from a Wigan POV.

Would you rather Wire go the rest of the season fully fit, or miss a few players here and there with niggles and so lose games and push Wigan further away from them?

That is the point I think Beswick was trying to make he just maybe went about it wrongly.

No he didn't. He didn't just say "It looks like Amos has broken his leg, that gives us a better chance" He was laughing about it! Would it be OK if Jack D or Phil K did it??

I'm going to wait till tomorrow for you to rethink this post before replying as it's obvious from the way you repeatedly qualify your statements with comments such "Obviously not major injuries such as a break" that you don't actually believe this is a valid argument.

And again, for the record, I'd rather beat a fully fit side than one weakened by injuries. Not that that has anything to do with this particular debate.

Exactly.

It's a perfectly valid argument and one I stand by. I'm in work at the mo so haven't been drinking if that is your belief.

I do not wish a SERIOUS injury on anybody and have always sportingly applauded a player off the field when such an incident has occurred and will continue to do so.

If a player misses a few games with injury (take Tommy's injury for example) and it benefits Wigan then I'll take that every time. As Roberts' injury will benefit Wire it's my opinion that that is what he meant. I doubt he was celebrating the fact that Amos had broken his leg, but rather that his injury would aid Wire. As I said earlier, maybe he went about it the wrong way but from what I heard I don't think there was any malice in the comment.

i fully understand what you're trying to say here but i think the point that people are trying to make is that this guy is supposed to be a professional and he's sat there laughing at the news. i dont care who he supports, he shouldn't be making comments like that live on the radio. i do think its been blown a tad out of proportion but i think amos, if anyone, deserves an apology.

That is what I mean by 'went about it the wrong way'

As a pro he needs to be 100% unbiased

Well if you're sure you stand by it, here goes. I'm sure Bernard Manning had no malice when he made racist jokes. I'm sure many on here tell them from time to time. Does it therefore follow that it should be broadcast? In fact, does it follow that anything should be broadcast as long as there's no malice in it? Do you think the Jonathon Ross/Russel Brand sketch was suitable for broadcast? There was clearly no malice in it?

To argue that his belief that Amos' potential double fracture of the leg (as it was then believed to be) was better for Wire, therefore he was at liberty to delight in the possibility is quite ridiculous! In fact I can best illustrate it by taking it to it's ultimate conclusion. Would his response to a Wigan player's death be appropriate in your opinion if he said "Can you see the smile on my face" or "what's a death matter if it wins us a trophy!" Now, I fully understand that no-one died. I merely use this extreme to show that the principle you are arguing is wrong. Where you draw the line is a matter for personal morals and integrity. The point I am making is that one person's acceptable is different to another's. It's up to the individual to make the decision where that line falls. If, in your post, you had debated what Alan Beswick had said, that would have been one thing. Of course, you didn't. Instead you chose to comment on other people's response to a given circumstance and question where their particular bounds of acceptibility shoul fall. That is why I posted to point this out. I don't mind your opinion. It's your's to have. What I do mind is you taking it upon yourself to decide where my own boundries of good taste should lie.

And as an aside, I think wanting a team to get injuries to better your own team's chances smacks a little too much of the Latics supporter in you! Personally I'd rather my team beat the best than win hollow victories.

...and he wasn't. Isn't this exactly what we have a right as license payers to expect? If he falls short don't we have a right to make it known to the corporation we fund that we are disatisfied? I think you need to re-read this post and then compare it to your previous ones. You've either changed your mind (fair enough; that's the point of debate) or you're getting confused.